The latest from Troy Taft

Menu

Category Archives: questions

If you watched the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, you may remember that Bill Nye used tree ring evidence to support the idea that there was not a global flood 4,000 ago. He said that they found evidence of a tree that was dated by humans to be 9,500 years old.

Beside the fact that there’s a big difference between 10,000 and 5,000,000,000 (the supposed evolutionary age of the earth, a problem that wasn’t really addressed), he was playing on a childhood belief that there is only one tree ring per year on a tree.

A little research into the science of tree dating reveals that it is a well known fact that, sometimes, trees produce more rings than one in a year. I wouldn’t throw away your belief in a young earth based on Bill Nye’s arm chair analysis.

To learn a bit more about the assumptions that go into dating trees, see these articles:

Remember, evidence isn’t proof because scientists can be wrong. Even when something is likely to be true, it doesn’t mean that it is true. Sometimes, unlikely things happen. In this case, it wasn’t even unlikely. Sometimes, trees produce more that one ring a year, and scientists already know this.

Neutrality is actually a fallacy. That’s because “neutrality” is a position.

A person who decides to be neutral is taking a position of neutrality, therefore, they are not being neutral. They are relying on a self-refuting logical argument. Not only that, they are implying that every philosophy that takes a position is wrong, usually while convincing themselves that it is an expression of tolerance!

It is not unusual to hear people assert that they come to scientific evidence neutrally, but this a denial of the obvious fact that everyone takes a position. Evidence can’t talk (even though some say it speaks for itself). Evidence requires a method of interpretation or else the “evidence” is just a set of objects without significance. To deny the method of interpretation is another way to deny taking a position.

It is also common for nations, business and individuals to claim the be neutral in regard to religious beliefs. Once again, this attempt to tolerate them all, denies them all since all of them are asserting their own position. Just because a person claims to not be doing something, doesn’t mean that that is what they are actually doing. You can claim to love someone while harming them. The same thing happens when a person claims to be religiously neutral and then disallows any of them to be expressed. The fact is that a secular position is being promoted under the disguise of “neutrality.”

The claim: “I am neutral” is itself a non-neutral claim because it assumes that “Neutrality exists.” Asserting this claim, is taking a position against those who don’t believe it exists. When a person asserts a position, they are not being neutral. Therefore, the claim that neutrality exists is a fallacy. Dr. Jason Lisle calls this fallacy: “The Pretended Neutrality Fallacy” in his book “The Ultimate Proof of Creation”.

Both Evolutionists and Creationists aren’t really neutral. They may convince themselves that they are, but by choosing to believe in neutrality they are not only taking a position, they are being irrational. It’s understandable that evolutionists would be irrational, because they don’t have a basis for logic or morality in their worldview, but Christians actually have a moral obligation to be rational because it’s biblical.

Christians are supposed to be honest about the fact that they are not neutral. Jesus said that people were either for Him or against Him. He never said that there were people who were “on the fence.” Instead, He made it clear that the fence didn’t exist. By doing this, He exposed everyone’s position. Claiming to be neutral is to say that Jesus is wrong. When you say that Jesus is wrong, you taking a very bold, non-neutral position.

So, the claim that a person is neutral is fallacious because it is based on the non-neutral position that neutrality exists. Christians should be aware of this and not be persuaded by the fallacy of neutrality.

I’m working on a new project. I answer a lot of questions in my commentaries, so I decided to make an index of questions that are answered in 183 Days in John.

Here’s what I have so far. I am interested to know if it helps.

Did Jesus exist before He was born?

Day 1: An Unusual Title

Day 2: Re-statement

Did Jesus create the world?

Day 1: An Unusual Title

Day 2: Re-statement

Day 3: Jesus The Creator

Does the Bible fit with evolution?

Day 1: An Unusual Title

Day 2: Re-statement

Day 3: Jesus The Creator

Is Jesus God?

Day 1: An Unusual Title

What is meant by “The Word” in John 1?

Day 2: Re-statement

Is the world basically good?

Day 5: Light and Darkness

What was the first Christmas really like?

Day 5: Light and Darkness

Day 7: Unrecognized

Was John talking about Himself in John 1:6?

Day 6: The Witness

Is the church building also a temple?

Day 7: Unrecognized

Is Jesus the only way to God?

Day 9: The Children of God

I have always had a lot of questions about the Bible myself and my commentary reflects many of the questions that I have had. I hope it helps you. If you have any of these questions, I encourage you to get 183 Days in John. This is just the first post of questions. I hope to provide more.